I dwell upon those terms with the more impressive force, because that _the spirit of no one of them_ has ever before been developed. _Me Deus Fidhius_, and _Me Hercules Fidhius_, we where taught at school to consider as appeals to the _God of Truth_, and the _Hercules of Honour_. Most assuredly those virtues are comprehended under the _radix_ of the great _mysterious_ Original; but the dictionaries and lexicons that gave us those significations knew no more of what that _Original_ was than they did of the connection between soul and body. Deus _Fidhius_, then, means God the _Budha_, and as such the _All-wise_, the _All-sacred_, the _All-amiable_, and the _All-hospitable_; and _Hercules_ Fidhius, that is, _Hercules_ the Budha, is, in sense and meaning, exactly the same. The Latin word _Fides_, and the English _Faith_, are but direct emanations from the same communion. A thousand other analogies must suggest themselves now in consequence. In a word, if you go through the circle of natural _religion_ and artificial _science_,--if you analyse the vocabulary of conventional _taste_ and of modish etiquette, you will find the _constituent particles_ of all the leading outlines resolve themselves into the _physical_ symbolisation of the radical Budh. What inference, I ask my reader, would he draw from the above facts? Unquestionably that at the outset of social life, mankind at large had used but one lingual conversation; and as the _Irish_ is the only language in which are traced the germs of all the diverging _radii_,--nay, as it is the _focus_ in which all amicably meet,--it follows inevitably that it must have been the universal language of the first human cultivators--the nursery of letters, and the cradle of revelation. “How charming is divine Philosophy! Not harsh and crabbed, as dull fools suppose, But musical as is Apollo’s lute, And a perpetual feast of nectared sweets Where no crude surfeit reigns.” CHAPTER XIX. The _Tuath-de-danaans_, or Mahabadeans, being thus far proved as the first occupiers of Iran, it may be asked, How happens it that no Persian historians, anterior to Mohsan Fani, have noticed their existence? In the first place, I answer that _they all_ have mentioned them, however _unconsciously_ by themselves, or _inadvertently_ by others. And even had this not been the fact--had not a single syllable been recorded, bearing reference to their name, the remote era, in itself, of their detachment from that country, would be the best possible apology for the omission.